Surprise, surprise: teachers’ union against PM’s pay plan

iansand says:

01:29pm | 10/08/10

I am all in favour of bonuses for schools and teachers.  I am very concerned about the ability of politicians and education bureaucrats to develop accurate and reasonable measures of ability.  NAPLAN tests alone won’t cut it, for two reasons (at least).  The first is that this measure is simplistic.  The second is that, if we have teachers teaching to the test now, imagine the carnage when there are a few thousand bucks for teacher and school at the other end of the process.  The devil will be in the detail here.

David Sanderson says:

01:38pm | 10/08/10

Yes, the unions are disconcerted that while Gillard is injecting much more money into education, after the dank failure of the Howard years. she is making the money highly conditional and is generally intent on getting greater executive control, from the principal up, over the system.

If you want to revolutionise the system, and not just have small incremental improvements, that is the only way to do it.

The Scarlet Pimpernel says:

01:44pm | 10/08/10

I thought teachers’ pay was within the purview of state education bureacracies?

Don’t get me wrong - I think rewarding achievement is a great idea and conceptually, this policy looks good - but if it involves handing money to the states and then walking away (like she did with BER) then forget it.

She simply must learn to follow hrough with the detail. Not doing so leaves everything she touches wide open to rorting and scamming, particularly if she entrusts others to carry out vague policy with real cash.

Cynical observer says:

01:54pm | 10/08/10

The devil is in the detail.  Will there be an assessment panel drawn from your peers?  Will problem students be lumped together for a new teacher to cope with?  Will the assessment be a bureaucratic nightmare designed to ensure “equal opportunity”?  Will school principals be required to stay below budget limits by rationing?  Administration needs to be simplified and bureaucracy cut toattract teachers who want to teach.

GerryK says:

02:43pm | 10/08/10

It is misguided. Frankly Gillards actions with respect to education have been so abysmal that I can’t understand how she considers it a strength. My Schools is a counter productive disaster that achieves nothing but make kids in poor schools where parents have no choice or mobility feel bad about themselves. Paying performance bonuses will lead to rorting and worse REAL outcomes as poorly performing children are isolated and passed around. Giving laptops to kids is a gross waste of money and there is plenty of evidence to suggest computer usage does not improve learning even though it captures their attention.

Her recent proposal to prevent troubled kids from playing sport is patently ludicrous. Having trouble at school? Make it even more miserable. It really shows that she has no understanding of children for obvious reasons.

There seems to be this assumption that because she is a women, and because she is a member of the Labor party that she is strong on education. Like the Liberals and the myth of economic conservatism, this is completely false. If I didn’t know otherwise, I would swear she was a member of the Liberal party.

john Williams says:

02:57pm | 10/08/10

Idiotic.
But then again it came from GillRudd who has form.
Who would determine the rankings?
How could you be sure it was not abused?...or plagued by favouritism?
Why the top 10%...would someone ranking consistently in the 10-15% grouping not have reason to be resentful?
More power to the Principals including the right to hire or fire would achieve improved results.
But schools do not need money incentives for this, which opens another avenue for waste and abuse.
The prestige gained by high achieving schools creates its own rewards.

Rosie says:

03:30pm | 10/08/10

Gillard’s plan to reward up to $100,000 to schools that can demonstrate increases in attendance and improvements in literacy and numeracy standards of their students will only widen the gap between the good schools and the bad schools, the bright kids and the not so bright kids.

Gillard was fortunate she was bright and attended I think the best Govt School in Australia, Unley High, Adelaide. She needs to remember that we are not all academics and some of us are much better at the practical stuff using our God given hands, plenty of common sense and determination to make it in this country.

“No school No play” idea is another cope out she hasn’t thought about. It’s ridiculous and doesn’t solve the problem. You don’t punish the children to get them to attend school. We know too well the benefits of our children running around in the fresh air playing sport. Sporting clubs should be ashamed of themselves for agreeing!

I find it hard to believe that any sporting organization would agree with Gillard because the problem here are not the kids but the punishment, denying the children something that is of great benefit to them.

The challenge for everyone, parents, sporting organization and especially the Govt of the day is to find a solution.

Use the money to employ more teachers and teacher’s aids and make the number of kids in a classroom smaller. Then extra help can be given to those that are struggling more individual attention without exposing too much of their inabilities.

I have 2 children, my daughter is extremely bright, never had to really apply herself but is a Uni graduate and today holds a high powering job that pays a lot of money. My son, a practical person did an apprenticeship - aircraft engineering but specializes in helicopters and works for a Scottish Co that services the oil rigs somewhere in WA and is paid more money than my daughter.

We as parents were able to work it out and didn’t need the schools they attended to tell us what path suited our kids. But not all parents were like us and need some direction on what path their children should follow. Spend the money on educating the parents as well.

We must invest the money into helping this kids that need extra learning for them to improve in their literacy and numeracy. The Govt may then find that these kids might enjoy going to school because they will have the feeling that society really cares.

Bruce says:

04:07pm | 10/08/10

We don’t need no thought control….....

David says:

04:42pm | 10/08/10

Teaching is often about team work and peer support - or it should be. This sort of nonsense is just going to discourage that.  It is going to put an emphasis on rote learning and examination results. (Which is why Gillard is intent on re-inventing the wheel with a national baccalaureate.)  It is going to mean that students with disabilities are going to be even less welcome than they are now for fear they might affect the overall results.
It is nothing more than nonsense in the last two weeks of a bitter election campaign that Gillard knows she cannot afford to lose. Unfortunately it will not mean the loss of support from teachers or the union. Too many believe they will be good enough to line their own pockets with the extra cash being promised.

AdamC says:

05:13pm | 10/08/10

The education unions are the gift that keeps on giving to Jumpin’ Joolyah. Labor leaders love to look tough by ‘standing’ up to their union paymasters. It’s especially easy when said paymasters are the standard-lowering kooks in the reviled education union.

This is actually a typically bad policy from Gillard, but not for the reasons cited by the education unions. It is bad because it promotes yet more centralised control on a system that is already horribly contrained and disabled by excessive bureaucracy. The Feds should encourage state governments to reform their state school systems to provide schools more autonomy to (shock!) set their own remuneration and recognition policies.

Why should a Federal government programme dictate the salary of a teacher in a local high school?

Sophie says:

05:43pm | 10/08/10

Does anyone know how will this cater for temporary teachers? Or teachers of subjects that are not in NAPLAN? Or support roles (ESL teachers, language teachers, technology teachers etc.)? Or teachers who do not teacher NAPLAN tested years (Kindergarten, year 1 etc…)? I would like these finer points ironed out.

hellena says:

06:24pm | 10/08/10

What’s the point when the CHILDREN are not allowed the opportunity to compete against one another, in case some poor little snookums gets depressed because he or she isn’t as good as another child? I attended a superb school, where children were graded and streamed according to academic ability, and no matter what stream you were in, you worked really hard to either move up a level, or to remain in your level, especially if you were in the top class. And this system did not discriminate against “special needs” children, as these had their own, separate, streams, with totally different curricula.

And as for that stupid idea about professionals becoming teachers; why on earth would they want to? The pay is bad compared to a professional salary, particularly if you have some years experience; you have to work in places other than where you want, and opportunities for advancement and higher pay are minimal; you dare not discipline or even comfort an upset child for fear of some school nazi complaint; and perhaps, just perhaps, people are professionals rather than teachers because they know they have no aptitude for teaching or for that matter, liking for children.

For example, I am an experienced professional, with a number of postgraduate degrees; I earn a high salary, and work my own hours, often from home, and travel regularly. Also, I suck at teaching, and would find keeping a bunch of kids in order, totally draining. What conceivable reason would make me want to become a teacher?

stephen says:

06:56pm | 10/08/10

First year salary for nurse, approx. 49,000 per year.
First year police officer, 48 thousand.
First year teacher, 52 thousand.
I would suggest this Union has done it’s job (only too well, and I would also suggest we pay a little more attention to any future constabulary claims). This Union, for other reasons, is a disgrace. They should have no further say in anything.

Dan says:

07:23pm | 10/08/10

“There’s a big difference between schools and the corporate sector. Bad companies that can’t retain good people or deliver great services can, and will, fail. Bad schools cannot.” ~ Paul Colgan

True point. However what is the purpose of the two very different entities. Companies are there to provide money for their owner/s, shareholders or directors. Schools are there to provide a service, namely education. Simply removing allegedly bad schools only punishes and further disadvantages the children, families and communities they are located in. This would result in either greater crime in the area, or it will overpopulate so-called good schools (who wouldn’t take to kindly to having extra students who make affect their results).

When did education become a competition to be won? What happened to the belief that education is not a destination but an ongoing journey? Give a person a fish and you feed them for a lunchtime, teach them how to fish and you feed them for a lifetime. Apparently not, in the so-called clever country. Julia’s so-called carrot is just the cheapest option she can dangle to try and entice voters. Rather than dedicate money to all schools, she’ll just “award” money to a select few - and even then not until closer to the NEXT federal election. That’s the smallest carrot out there!

Arthur Spencer says:

09:14pm | 10/08/10

As a teacher I can honestly say that this is a stunt by gillard there is no way she intends to take the unions on, after all they are the ones bankrolling this campaign. It’s disappointing because teachers should be paid on performance it’s not fair that some teachers do put in the hours out of school time and in return get good results from their class while others do the bare minimum and still get paid the same.

This labor government like all labor governments end up making life more difficult and unfair for people in positions that are paid for by he tax payer.

acotrel says:

09:41am | 11/08/10

Julia’s bright idea about getting scientists, engineers, and lab attendants into teaching is a good one.  The only trouble is that the teachers already in the system will feel threatened and move to keep out people who have industrial experience through doing a REAL JOB!

Clare says:

09:50am | 11/08/10

I really find it hard to believe that people think this could be implemented without creating huge cliques and internal political wranglings in schools. I taught for 20 years. Apart from a few bad apples, the problem isn’t teachers. It is society, and particularly parents, who think that children are all inately angels and don’t need to be disciplined, and that somehow a teacher will have a ‘magic voice’ that will calm the 30 odd out of control individuals who know there are little or no consequences for their behaviour.  This is what will happen….classes will be stacked with the worst students, and these classes will be handed to the less valued or popular teachers…probably first year out, casual and temporaries, any teacher who hasn’t played the internal political game in the school…ie agreeing with everything the executive decrees, joining up on extra committees, running a successful sport team etc etc. It will be a disaster….if the school doesn’t work as a team it is impossible to do the job, but they are handing teachers a tool which will cause so much internal dissent and jockeying for approval.
What teachers need, is a return to discipline procedures of a generation ago, and parents who will back them up. At many schools where I taught, parents had even exempted their children from being placed on detention. It is truly a complete joke.

acotrel says:

10:30am | 11/08/10

When I wasa in primary school, I learnt t o keep well below the radar.  I found out it didn’t pay to achieve, and be come ‘top of the grade’!  The lowest common denominator rules in our society.  And teachers are responsible, but rarely accountable!

Kanook says:

11:20am | 11/08/10

So the plan is to pay Teachers bonuses for doing their job??? Im sorry but i fail to see why a teacher (who earns good money) should now be paid a bonus to do their job? This makes no sense! Also cash bonus to schools for improving their school, how is this judged if not on test results?  So does this mean that the teachers in Australia dont do their job/ Does this mean that Teachers in Australia do nothing and dont care now?

Anbother waste of money, another Labor DUD!

ibast says:

01:22pm | 11/08/10

Having had only a few good teachers all through school, TAFE and uni the idea of encouraging good teaching is a good one.  What worries me is the measure.  I also had a few teachers that were meant to have achieved certain acclaim through the tests that were around at the time and all of those were useless.  They were clearly good at jumping through the hoops present in a government assessment system, but useless face to face with students.  Student and parent surveys need to be used, not just a bureaucratic style government system.  There are problem with that, but they can be overcome.

casba says:

01:47pm | 11/08/10

Speaking as a teacher with many years of experience, can I just ask, when are we going to see performance based pay rewards for good politicians who actually deliver something worth delivering, rather than just some hair brained idea that sounded good at the time and which they thought made them look good to the voters? It’s called spin-and a good teacher never needs to resort to spin!

Glen Tindall says:

03:23pm | 11/08/10

Why are teachers so afraid of having their performance measured ? OK, so one year you might get a particularly bright/slow/naughty/compliant bunch of kids which will affect the rating. But doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, etc etc all have varying types of clients and cases, and it all comes out in the wash.

What is really galling is that everyone, and I mean everyone, knows who the good teachers are at a school, and who are poor teachers. It’s no secret, the other staff know, the parents know, and the kids know. The AEU should stop protecting the useless or lazy members and look after the great mass of teachers who work hard and do a great job. Ok, rant over, back to work.